|
Lee
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2007, 11:54:23 » |
|
What do people think of Coombe, Finstock, Ascott and Shipton. Are they viable in the long term. Is the only reason why their patronage is low because of the few services (and lack of London services recently!)?
Does anybody travel on the "halts" train frequently? If so, how often does the train stop at them? My view is that the "halts" should be kept open in order to provide access to the rail network for the areas that they serve. Sure , these are sparsely populated in places , but does that mean that the locals are any less deserving of a train service? As for the appropriate level of service , it depends on who you ask. Jacobs Consultancy (see pages 120 - 122 of the following link - http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103) felt that no trains should call at these stations , but locals at Finstock felt otherwise when closure was proposed in 1994 :  Combe , Finstock and Ascott had their train service reduced to 1 train each way on Monday - Fridays only as part of the December 2006 timetable process. Here is a photo of Finstock station in 1983 before the platform was moved to the opposite side of the track :  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2007, 19:31:34 » |
|
I'm not from that area but I did look in the timetable and at least the 1 train per day in each direction for the "shacks" is during the peaks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2007, 14:58:40 » |
|
I'm not from that area but I did look in the timetable and at least the 1 train per day in each direction for the "shacks" is during the peaks.
Yes, but it now does not go from London! And its a Thames Turbo- the platforms are too short. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2007, 23:56:57 » |
|
In all honesty, running through to and from London has never been a big issue on that service, or not for those who regularly use the halts, who are all heading into Oxford. The franchise requirement is simply that a train calling at the halts arrives in Oxford some time after 8am and a return working leaves Oxford after 5pm. It says nothing about through running.
When the afternoon working started at Paddington, it was often an unpleasant scrum for the large numbers boarding at Oxford and trying to find seats in an already busy two-car Turbo, along with those who had ridden from London in the back unit, which was taken off at Oxford. This was why it was decided to start it at Oxford and to put a 125 on the 15.51 off London, to encourage Worcestershire passengers wanting a speedier journey to avoid the stopper.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2007, 10:49:36 » |
|
It should also be noted that prior to December 2006 , a limited "halts" service ran on Saturdays as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2007, 21:28:33 » |
|
165's are pretty poor, even compared to the humble 158.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2008, 19:27:47 » |
|
165's are pretty poor, even compared to the humble 158.
158s are better, but less capacity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2008, 19:29:19 » |
|
165's are pretty poor, even compared to the humble 158.
158s are better, but less capacity. Well, only if you count the 3+2 seating as adding capacity, have you ever tried fitting 3 people on a 3 seater? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2008, 20:29:04 » |
|
Of course as Thames Turbo's are the Widest stock in Britain the 3+2 seating isn't as bad as that on the 150's that still have 3+2 seating.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2008, 20:32:27 » |
|
Of course as Thames Turbo's are the Widest stock in Britain the 3+2 seating isn't as bad as that on the 150's that still have 3+2 seating.
Quite agree! I travel on a LM▸ 150 daily, and it is uncomfortable to have 3 people in a 3 seater. 2 max! The Thames Turbos are better than 150s in terms of 3+2 seats (also there is less gum on the seats with FGW▸ )! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stebbo
|
|
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2008, 14:39:59 » |
|
With reference to Industry Insider's suggestions, as a short term solution, why not adopt those ideas plus extend the length of the double track section in the middle. Start by redoubling Evesham to Moreton (how often do the early morning Hereford trains have to wait at Evesham) then Ascott to (say) Charlbury.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2008, 18:42:22 » |
|
Good idea!
Or perhaps Eve to Pershore and Honeybourne.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stebbo
|
|
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2008, 14:04:36 » |
|
Yes but then you have two bits of double track, so more switches and signalling and general complication. If you extend the middle double tracked section you have a platform to eventually extend double track further.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2008, 18:30:21 » |
|
Yes but then you have two bits of double track, so more switches and signalling and general complication. If you extend the middle double tracked section you have a platform to eventually extend double track further.
True, but a second large loop adds more capacity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
